Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Scott Creighton

Khufu Cartouche in GP 20,000 Years Old?

146 posts in this topic

VALID research or vandalism? Egyptian authorities are in uproar after two German students scraped away some ancient writing to "prove" the Great Pyramids are 20,000 years old...

The two students from Dresden University recently took matters into their own hands: With Egypt's political turmoil distracting security forces, the pair conspired to sample the red paint and smuggle the pigment out of Egypt.

They have since asserted the fragments support arguments that the construction of date of the Pyramids was much older than Khufu's reign. - Source

Curiously, this 20,000 year age is supported with my own recent research. I am presently trying to get more information on this to establish exactly what tests have been done on the sample and the results. (And no--I absolutely do not condone the actions of these two 'adventurers').

SC

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really a laugh, not only did they want to push it back to 12,000 years ago now 20,000 years ago,when everything around it points to the time of Khufu's reign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really a laugh, not only did they want to push it back to 12,000 years ago now 20,000 years ago,when everything around it points to the time of Khufu's reign

Yes--the 20,000 age is round about right. The ancient Egyptian civilisation is much older than academics will concede.

SC

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a Youtube video of the sample being taken from the cartouch of Khufu in Campbell's Chamber of the GP. (It's in German).

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video is quatsch. In the video the tone of voice used when commentator says "Or a landing pad for aliens", in German, indicates to me, along with other elements of the video, that this is, as I'm certain many forum members will know, total and utter, quatsch. There is also a link on the youtube channel to their shop, because they need your money. Hmm.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curiously, this 20,000 year age is supported with my own recent research. I am presently trying to get more information on this to establish exactly what tests have been done on the sample and the results. (And no--I absolutely do not condone the actions of these two 'adventurers').

SC

It is absolutely correct that the pyramid is much older than written in our history books.

My sources confirm as I have always asserted here on UM that It was repaired by Imhotep for Djoser.

That explains much of the carbon dating results.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video is quatsch. In the video the tone of voice used when commentator says "Or a landing pad for aliens", in German, indicates to me, along with other elements of the video, that this is, as I'm certain many forum members will know, total and utter, quatsch. There is also a link on the youtube channel to their shop, because they need your money. Hmm.

The point of my posting the video link was merely to show that these two "adventurers" DID indeed, as per their claim, remove fragments of ochre paint and limestone from the Khufu Cartouche.in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid. The shot of its removal is very brief but you can clearly observe them removing the material.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is absolutely correct that the pyramid is much older than written in our history books.

My sources confirm as I have always asserted here on UM that It was repaired by Imhotep for Djoser.

That explains much of the carbon dating results.

Slight problem here is that Imhotep built the Step Pyramid for King Djoser and would have been dead before construction of the Great Pyramid was started. Would like to know who your sources are and ask if they actually know 3rd and 4th Dynasty timelines.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of my posting the video link was merely to show that these two "adventurers" DID indeed, as per their claim, remove fragments of ochre paint and limestone from the Khufu Cartouche.in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid. The shot of its removal is very brief but you can clearly observe them removing the material.

SC

I know, that is why I called the video quatsch, not anything else, well, GP's age now pushed back to 20 000 years old. What next, 30 000, then 40 000. Anyway, I am glad to read that they are now on an airport watch list and will be arrested if they try to get back into Egypt. IMO they should be extradited to Egypt and impaled, or thrown to crocodiles with the destroyers of Malawi.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What next, 30 000, then 40 000.

And built by proto-aborigines under space-alien direction, who were then transported to Australia as payment. :whistle:

Edited by PersonFromPorlock
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the students probably dated, was some of the lime mortar - and the dating of that (assuming they used carbon-dating) would be wildly inaccurate as the calciferous ('organic') component of limestone is millions of years old.

SC: Radiocarbon dating cannot work on any carbon material older than 62,000 years. It cannot date calciferous material millions of years old. Red ochre paint in ancient Egypt typically used gum or honey as a binding agent. Both these materials are organic and can, therefore, be radiocarbon dated.

Leo: So, either the story is about complete bunglers, or the story itself is completely bogus. In either case, it in no way overturns the orthodox view of ancient Egyptian civilisation and their construction of the pyramids at Giza.

SC: It doesn't HAVE to overturn orthodox view. The clandestine removal of this material could in fact force conventional Egyptology to finally have these markings scientifically tested (if they haven't already done so). These two "students" could falsely claim their sample is 20,000 years old. What could conventional Egyptology do about that? They would (however reluctantly) have to have their own tests done and done in such a way that the result is beyond question (multiple blind samples to different labs, with independent observers and the whole thing recorded). If it was smart then conventional Egyptology should get their dating of material from the Khufu cartouche out into the public domain--what have they to hide? Of course, if the age of their sample comes out at 20,000 years, are we likely to hear about it? Is this perhaps why Zahi Hawass rejects radiocarbon dating technique? Does he perhaps know something we don't?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Radiocarbon dating cannot work on any carbon material older than 62,000 years. It cannot date calciferous material millions of years old. Red ochre paint in ancient Egypt typically used gum or honey as a binding agent. Both these materials are organic and can, therefore, be radiocarbon dated.

Which is the point I made. They either dated the paint - and the story is bogus because the cartouche mentions Khufu - or they dated the limestone/mortar - in which case they will get crazy numbers because carbon dating isn't able to be reliable with such old material.

So, either they are bunglers, or the story is bogus.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curiously, this 20,000 year age is supported with my own recent research.

Gosh, that sure /is/ a curious there, Scott, you posting something that JUST HAPPENS to support your own theories. I can't imagine anything else but sheer coincidence that would result in this thread.

--Jaylemurph

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curiously, this 20,000 year age is supported with my own recent research.

SC

and exactly what is your educational background and credentials?? No, no don't tell me...."Journalism"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...or they dated the limestone/mortar....

SC: Have a look at the video again. The sample is being removed from the SURFACE of a limestone block i.e. from the Khufu cartouche. The mortar used to bind the blocks was placed BETWEEN the blocks, not on their surface.

LEO: So, either they are bunglers, or the story is bogus.

SC: Or there is something seriously wrong with conventional chronology.

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curiously, this 20,000 year age is supported with my own recent research.

Oh, so Howard-Vyse was not a fraud after all?

:whistle:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is absolutely correct that the pyramid is much older than written in our history books.

My sources confirm as I have always asserted here on UM that It was repaired by Imhotep for Djoser.

That explains much of the carbon dating results.

Your sources?

What are those please Zoser.

I personally like a Brown Sauce, but you can't go past a Rosella tomato sauce really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Have a look at the video again. The sample is being removed from the SURFACE of a limestone block i.e. from the Khufu cartouche. The mortar used to bind the blocks was placed BETWEEN the blocks, not on their surface.

Which makes absolutely no difference. The ancient Egyptian pyramid builders used the rubble from the limestone blocks they cut to make the mortar (it is partly crushed limestone) - so whether they scraped limestone from a block or lime from the mortar it is from the same source and the same age.

SC: Or there is something seriously wrong with conventional chronology.

Or there is something very wrong with the story - and your objectivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your sources?

What are those please Zoser.

I personally like a Brown Sauce, but you can't go past a Rosella tomato sauce really.

Your best hope is that some other UM member has come across the same source and is prepared to reveal it. If there is such a person who has come across the material they will easily recognise my language and references. I have not alas been contacted by such a person yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight problem here is that Imhotep built the Step Pyramid for King Djoser and would have been dead before construction of the Great Pyramid was started. Would like to know who your sources are and ask if they actually know 3rd and 4th Dynasty timelines.....

Not true. The GP is much much older than you realise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weasel words Zoser.

"ohh I have sources I can't name" is next to bloody useless in conversation when you don't even have the common courtesy to tell us exactly what they're telling you.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. The GP is much much older than you realise.

I maintain my position on the GP as I consistently have over the years.

However something doesn't quite make sense to me about this act of 'mischief'. I have always been strongly suspicious of the cartouche because of it's shoddy quality and like many I considered it to be the work of a devious Howard Vyse. Even if the motives of such an act of deception were somewhat vague.

It would make far more sense to have elaborate artwork in the GP (in keeping with other traditional Egyptian relics) or have none. Why just one shoddy piece of work in that location? There are other writings in the pyramid allegedly signatures of the original builders which also make me suspicious.

My money is on the German findings being erroneous. That writing is not original. It was either Vyse or the work of the repair team in antiquity.

In the writings I have by the way it mentions that secret chambers were constructed by Imhotep.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which makes absolutely no difference. The ancient Egyptian pyramid builders used the rubble from the limestone blocks they cut to make the mortar (it is partly crushed limestone) - so whether they scraped limestone from a block or lime from the mortar it is from the same source and the same age.

SC: No, it makes all the difference. The mortar only has carbon (charcoal) within it because it was heated over a fire. Ash and charcoal from the burning wood in the fires entered into the gypsum mortar mix and it is THAT carbon from the burning wood that scientists extract from the mortar to radiocarbon date. They do NOT (cannot) date the limestone with radiocarbon dating. There is no dateable carbon in a limestone block as the stone is millions of years old and the radioactive decay rate (or half-life) of carbon (the C12-C14 isotope ratio) is only testable up to 62,000 years.

Leo: Or there is something very wrong with the story - and your objectivity.

SC: Which you have said already. Or, as I responded, there is something wrong with conventional chronology. Perhaps that is why Dr Hawass roundly rejects the radiocarbon dating technique. Perhaps he's already tested the pigment in the Khufu cartouche (I mean, why wouldn't he?), and it didn't give hime the answer he was expecting. So, rather than accept the evidence, you reject the science.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, so Howard-Vyse was not a fraud after all?

:whistle:

You should realise that my position with regards to the activities of Howard-Vyse has always been that, given his past record of fraud and criminal behaviour, he is an unreliable witness. I have always argued that the only way to vindicate Howard-Vyse (or otherwise) is to scientifically analyse these markings in order to determine their authenticity (or otherwise). What I found remarkable is that Egypt-apologists here (and elsewhere) were more concerned with trying to prove Howard-Vyse was actually a saint and that his testimony should stand rather than do any real science on the available evidence. I take it that you are happy then that real science should be used to decide this issue and that it should not be settled on the mere word of Howard-Vyse?

http://www.grahamhan...329195&t=329195

Regards,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.